About your Search

20121128
20121206
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12
have had an experience of this in new england. new hampshire has no income tax, no sales tax. every state around hampshire had one or the other. in the 1960's, and every state added another one, either the sales tax or the income tax. within hesitation of their people that the other tax would come out and the revenue would be used because it will be more effective in collecting it. every one of those states, the revenues have gone down, the income tax has gone up, and the size of government has gone up. from my standpoint, a value- added tax is just a way to grossly expand the size of the government, and it does not fix our revenue problems. more importantly than that, just the point where i think this argument ends up, the american people would annihilate any party that passed a national sales tax rate. if the democratic party thinks they are in charge now, and they are, and the republican party has done some things to marginalize itself, but if you want to resurrect a republican party, give me a value-added tax. >> let's take the value-added tax off the table for this the session,
tom call who suggested he and his gop colleagues should renew middle-class tax cut and allowed the top tax rates to let -- rise. tonight, we speak from -- hear from speaker boehner, house democrats, and president obama on the so-called fiscal clef. later, alan simpson and erskine bowles talk about some of the fiscal choices facing congress. >> the program began under one of the advisers to president franklin roosevelt to document the conditions under which people were living. this was back when we did not have television. we had radio, but a lot of places did not have electricity, so they could not listen to the radio broadcast to find out what was going on in other parts of the country. he was an economist from columbia university. he was the head of this project. in 1939, when kodak introduced color film, they sent him to have his photographers try out, see what they could do. kodak was trying to establish a new market and product, and they wanted people who would know how to use it effectively to try it out and publicize it. >> america in the 1930's and 1940's -- the library of cong
capital gains rate in the a.m.t. is higher than the regular tax rates from incomes around $200,000 to $500,000. and that was the first broad expansion of the a.m.t., it began to hit an awful lot of people. then in 2001 they reduced regular tax rates but did not reduce a.m.t. tax rates. . for many people, the a.m.t. tax bill only changed the name of the tax i paid. i got little benefit from the rate ofin my opinion, the expand on tax has nothing to do with the action of indexing. it is the result of the conscious decision to hike the cost of tax reductions. >> the alternative minimum tax is 28%. if your tax rate was lowered to 25%. you still have to pay 28%. >> that is correct. for incomes between to london thousand dollars and $500,000, the effective tax rate is 35%. you hit the 35% rate and incomes fire lower than the income levels at which you would hit the 35% rate and regular tax. >> why do they call it a patch? >> it is a one time year by year patch to stop the broad expansion. you could ask why they call it a cliff. they have discussed this in terms of the patch. it is a
corporate and individual taxes. the third piece is small businesses. we work out how develop a tax code that is good for competitiveness. you need to think about how those play into it. i think one of the things to keep hearing through messages with different groups of people is, while everybody is aware that the solution is going to take sacrifices from all sides, on spending, on revenues -- the confidence you get for putting the deal in place to actually has tremendous economic benefits. the cheapest form of stimulus is confidence. if we can put that in place, and people believe something is going to stick, it becomes easier to do your part in all of this. if the moving pieces and revenue are there, do not underestimate the benefit of what the future holds. >> this ties into michael's point. the productivity, the amount of money they get spent maintaining and administering the complex tax code is unbelievable. i would rather be spending that money. let us get on with building a business. society should do it. people should take that as a given. i know the rest of us have it. we would
,000. and everyone is in agreement -- the republicans do not want to see the middle class go without this tax cut. so where we disagree, let us push that off. where we agree, let's embrace. further, we discussed again the long term effects of our deficit, which are directly tied to health care -- the work that has been done in the congress as it relates to constructing and exchange that will take place in 2014 and go into effect, and the tools that we provided a initially on a concept that by its very nature was one designed by republicans, that there is ample room for us to tackle the unbelievable rise in cost of health care to 17% of our gross domestic product by focusing on dropping those costs. most recently the president of aetna said very clearly -- not only if we drop those costs would we make health care more affordable, we would also deal with balancing our national debt. so these are all very constructive areas that we all should agree to. that the american public wants us to pursue. we remain optimistic because of the way the president has gone out there and is selling this concept, not on
. we had the judd gregg kent conrad. we know it. it has been doing something with actual tax revenues. mitt romney proved during the campaign you cannot do it just by doctoring up the tax code. that should be part of the deal. we need to have tax reform, we have to have the people that have done so well during the difficult time with the economy, the richest of the rich will have to pay a little bit more to solve the idea of the problems of the country. -- to solve the financial problems of this country. >> good afternoon, everyone. as we head into the fiscal cliff negotiations, my advice to the president would be -- seems like our friends on the other side are having difficulty turning off the campaign. we need to sit down and work this matter out. i think we have a clear sense of the year to do something important for the country. we all know that the most critical steps to be taken are to save the entitlements, which are on an unsustainable path to bankruptcy. there's no better time to begin to fix that problem than right now. so i would hope our friends on the other side can kind
written a lot about the tax side of the equation. we need to read more about the spending side of the equation. they are equally important if we are going to get a balanced plan. they are serious about reducing spending -- that would include reducing spending on health care entitlements. they are serious about protecting the middle class -- you can really feel the president's passion on that. they were serious about restoring confidence in the short and long term so our economy can grow and create jobs. i think the president has always been for a balanced approach come as alan and i have. our message to the president and the congress from day one has been the same -- that is the problem is real, the solutions are painful, and there is not going to be an easy way out of it. the only way to solve it will be a balanced plan with cutting spending and one without the other will not work. where do i think we are? i am really worried. i believe the probability is we are going over the cliff. i think that would be horrible. it would be devastating to the economy. it particularly bother
young people with direct support financially for the enterprise, or with privilege and taxes. those are the two possibilities, but we should do it. the fight against unemployment, in my eyes, is the highest priority for the european union, or must be the highest priority for the european union. the international labor organization spoke about the lost generation in such countries. to lose a whole generation from a society is to destroy democracy. therefore, if there are not direct places for young people, we must intervene directly from the state level to support those enterprises to employ young people. i could tell a lot more, but i was asked to do it shorter. both sides have a lot of economic and political problems, but we are solving the problems. we must solve our economic and political problems and cooperate, and it is possible. perhaps one problem is the lack of cooperation between the united states and the european union. to solve the problems we have, one step is to cooperate more. gender equality, the european parliament is one of the strongest fighters in the world for ge
that he will have to give compromise on tax rates? >> revenue is on the table. there are serious spending cuts as part of the agreements. we have a debt crisis. we are spending too much. we have to recognize that sizzle the spending that is out of control. >> what size spending cuts do you think it would take to reach a deal of the fiscal of question mike do you think the promise has to be included at interest deal? >> i do not think it is so important for a visit to the of what the spending cuts ought to be. terra a lot of options have you can get there. the second part of the question was, -- >> do you think the promise of spending cuts has to be included in a deal that averts the fiscal close? >> there is a from mark we presented two weeks ago. it has been agreed to in terms of a downpayment that would include spending cuts and revenue. the entitlement reform, and tax reform next year. this is way out of balance. not a recognition on the part of the white house. a spending problem that we have. >> the prospect of going over the fiscal close. which one would you choose? what's of will d
are before us. tax increases are not. but underlying all of that, foundational to all of that, is putting america back to work. getting americans back into their jobs. if we do that we will clearly increase employment and when you increase employment you always increase tax revenue to the federal government, to state governments and local governments. so our principle task as i see it and i think i'm joined by many of my colleagues, both democratic and republican, is to get the american economy going. to put it back in gear. and there are many reasons beyond just employment and the opportunities that family have -- families have to make it. one of the critical elements in all of this is to protect americans. we recently saw superstorm san joaquin smash into -- sandy smash into new jersey and new york with devastating results. loss of life, incredible loss of property, both public and private, and a very, very big cleanup bill. joining me in a little while will be some of our representatives from the state of new york. and they'll talk about that in detail. but before sandy ever hit the co
the fiscal cliff by passing legislation to stop all the tax hikes, to replace the sequester, and pave the way for tax reform and entitlement reform. we are the only ones with a balanced plan to protect the economy, protect american jobs, and protect the middle class from the fiscal cliff. without spending cuts and entitlement reform, it will be impossible to address our country's debt crisis and get our economy going again and to create jobs. right now all eyes are on the white house. the country does not need a victory lap. it needs leadership. it is time for the president and congressional democrats to tell the american people what spending cuts they're willing to make. with that, i will take a few questions. [indiscernible] >> it has been very clear over the last year and a half. i have talked to the president about many of them. you can look at our budgets where we outlined specific proposals that we passed last year and the year before. we know what the menu is. we do not know what the white house is willing to do to get serious about solving our debt crisis. [indiscernible] >> i am not
of the white house's effort to cut public support to end the bush era tax cuts for incomes on $250,000 and above. it will be shown at noon eastern on c-span 3. >> washington worked his way up and went to harvard law school. he emigrated out west to the lead minee industry was in its heyday. he arrived by stagecoach, by train and arrived in this muddy mining town, boarded himself in a log cabin and slowly worked his way up and became a successful lawyer and got involved politically, ran for congress, search for 8 terms. he then befriended abraham lincoln, obviously from illinois, and ulysses s. grant, and as they were on the rise, he stayed with them as a close confidante and colleague during the civil war. after grant was elected president, he appointed washburn secretary of state. at that time, he became ill. his family feared for his life. after 10 days, he submitted his resignation to president grants. grant regretfully accepted his resignation. over the next several months, he regained his health, which was always fragile. grant offered him the position as minister to france, a
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12